On Wednesday morning, the third day of oral arguments involving the constitutional challenges to the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court explored this question: If we find that the “individual mandate” is unconstitutional, does the absence of a severability clause mean that the whole law is unconstitutional?

The coalition of states argued that the failure of Congress to include a severability clause in the law means that, if one clause is stricken, all must be stricken. As such, if the individual mandate, described as the “heart of the law” is found to be unconstitutional, then they must strike the entire ACA.  A well-worded “severability clause” in the law would have definitely preserved the rest of the law if another part were found to be unconstitutional.  Nevertheless, the absence of such a clause does not mean that the Court is automatically obligated to strike the whole law just because one provision is found to be unconstitutional.  The government attorneys argued as much and pleaded with the Court to practice restraint. They argued that, if one part was unconstitutional, then the rest of the law could be left to stand alone. So, oral argument was heard on Wednesday morning regarding this question. Court observers noted that ultra-conservative judges seemed to favor striking the law in its entirety if the individual mandate, called the heart of the law, was found unconstitutional.

An afternoon session was held to ascertain whether the health law’s expansion of the Medicaid program for the working poor compels the participation of states to such a degree as to amount to coercion. The ACA requires those states that are participating in the Medicaid program to increase the amount of income one may earn to 133% of the national poverty level (which is about $23,000 for a family of four) when deciding upon eligibility.

The states contend that they need help with care of their poor residents and they must take federal funding. However, they allege it violates their sovereignty and it is unduly burdensome to increase the amount of people on Medicaid.  Basically, the states argued that the offer of federal monies for Medicaid, which is co-sponsored by the states at varying percentages, is too good to pass up.  As such, they continue, it amount s to a coercive, and therefore, unconstitutional mandate.  However, the “offer you cannot refuse” argument seemed to lack acceptance from the judges. The administration argued that Congress has always been permitted to put conditions upon money awarded to states. Further, they contended, there is no coercion in making the deal so sweet that the states definitely want to take advantage of it. No program in which Congress has attached a condition to release federal dollars has ever been found to be “coercive.” A previous federal program that awarded money for highway construction to states that rose the drinking age to 21 years has been upheld by the Court. This issue seems to be a win for the administration but there are skeptics among pundits.

Lastly, much attention has been given to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s reactions and questions because he is considered a swing vote for the individual mandate issue and the possible death of the whole law if the mandate is found unconstitutional. Kennedy is a Catholic.

Although Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli was uniformly said to have given a far better performance on this last day than the second day, the ACA is not on certain ground. Verrilli’s closing argument conceded that there was indeed an argument to be made for liberty. He argued that access to healthcare and the freedom from feeling the crushing weight of illness are also forms of liberty which need to be protected.

NETWORK continues to offer its full and prayerful support for the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

Original Post From March 28:

The Supreme Court convened on Monday, March 26, 2012, to hear arguments concerning the constitutionality of two provisions in the much-debated, highly partisan Affordable Care Act. The Court has agreed to hear arguments on four separate issues:

• Is the case too premature to be brought before a court?
• Does Congress have the power to mandate that an individual purchase health insurance?
• Does the expansion of Medicaid unduly burden the states?
• Must the entire law be declared null if one part is found to be unconstitutional?

On Monday, March 26, the Justices heard arguments to determine whether an antiquated tax law would bar the case from even being litigated at present. It was not an issue that was appealed by either the coalition of states or the federal government and it does not have anything to do with the actual law under review. On the contrary, the High Court, of its own accord, requested Robert A. Long, a private attorney, to present the argument that the Anti-Injunction Act bars litigation of this lawsuit because the Act states that one must pay the tax before one can complain about it. Since the penalties will not be due until April of 2015, the argument continues, this case is too premature to be heard. Both parties to the case want the case to be heard and opposed Mr. Long. At the end of the day, most Court observers believed that the Justices will choose to decide the constitutional question of whether Congress exceeded its powers despite arguments that the challenge was brought too soon.

Arguments concerning the constitutionality of issues within the Affordable Care Act were slated for Tuesday and Wednesday.

On Tuesday, the Justices heard arguments related to the constitutionality of the mandate that all persons must purchase insurance by August 2014. Failure to purchase insurance would result in the levy of monetary fines that would be due with one’s income taxes by April 15, 2015. Specifically, the Court must answer the question, “Does Congress have the power, under the powers of commerce regulation, to mandate individuals to purchase insurance?”

The 26 plaintiff states, led by Florida, and one business, argued that mandated insurance is an overreach of governmental powers. They maintain that individuals should not be forced to buy insurance because it is a “product that they may not want or need.” Paul Clement, lead attorney for the individual states’ case, reasoned that many things are good for one’s health but individuals should not be forced to purchase them.  Clement also contended that it was a violation of privacy and a slippery slope to mandate what products a citizen must purchase. Solicitor General Verilli, arguing for the government, stated that the law merely regulates a commerce that already exists and is universally used. Unlike a refusal to purchase broccoli, those who do not purchase insurance will, nevertheless, eventually utilize healthcare systems. Delayed diagnoses and treatment result in higher costs for emergency and complicated care that may have been avoided with preventive or early treatment.

Court observers gave mixed opinions regarding possible rulings individual Justices may make, citing strenuous questioning of the Solicitor General by the Justices.

On Wednesday, the two hearings scheduled will address whether the entire ACA must be voided if the individual mandate is found unconstitutional and whether the expansion of Medicaid coverage to those living at 133% of poverty level unduly burdens the states*.

The Court must publish its rulings by June 30, 2012.

NETWORK continues to offer its full support of the Affordable Care Act.

*NETWORK took a leadership role in organizing the distribution and signing of an amicus brief concerning Medicaid expansion, which was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court.

This week began with Monday’s news about lawsuits being filed by a group of Catholic dioceses, universities and others challenging HHS regulations that insurers cover contraception. Because of NETWORK’s long history of working on healthcare issues, our Executive Director, Sister Simone Campbell, was immediately asked to comment, and she appeared that evening on Hardball with Chris Matthews to present her views.

Today, an op-ed by Cardinal Donald Wuerl appeared in the Washington Post. In it, he claimed that the lawsuits are not about money or even about contraception. They are, he stated, about “religious freedom” and the Bill of Rights.

Are they really about religious freedom – or are they about something else? Many believe that politics and power are actually at the heart of this battle.

When the administration first proposed the insurance mandate regarding contraception a few months ago, NETWORK stood with other Catholic groups and individuals in opposition. The administration quickly proposed an accommodation that would address some of the earlier problems regarding conscience protections. We then expressed our gratitude that “through thoughtful consideration of the competing needs of people of different faith perspectives the administration has found a way to honor faith-based conscience objections.” We have also continued to support ongoing negotiations as details are ironed out.

Why, then, were the lawsuits filed this week, many months before the regulation is even to take effect and while negotiations about the administration’s proposed accommodation are still going on? Why do so many conservative pundits stubbornly refuse to admit that this accommodation was even made – or that negotiations about its details continue to this day? Questions to ponder.

Also, we cannot ignore the fact that the Bishops are about to begin their highly financed, PR-driven “Fortnight for Freedom” campaign next month. A little publicity this month regarding the lawsuits can’t hurt.

And it is no coincidence that this is an election year.

Commonweal’s recent editorial about the Bishops’ campaign raises an important point: “This initiative is being launched during an election year in which one party has assumed the mantle of faith and charges the other with attacking religion. The bishops need to do much more to prevent their national campaign from becoming a not-very-covert rallying point for the Republican Party and its candidates.”

Early signs are not entirely promising. Some prominent Bishops have been quoted making highly disparaging comments about President Obama, with Bishop Daniel Jenky even comparing him to Hitler and Stalin. Cardinal Timothy Dolan went on CBS news this week, where he described the Church’s “horror” at “straightjacketed, handcuffing” and “strangling” religious exemptions in the administration’s HHS proposal.

But, thank God, we have also learned that some Bishops are expressing serious reservations about current tactics. E.J. Dionne gave hope to many Catholic moderates in an op-ed this week. Describing the lawsuits filed on Monday, he wrote, “But the other side of this news was also significant: That the vast majority of the nation’s 195 dioceses did not go to court. It turns out that many bishops, notably the church leadership in California, saw the litigation as premature.”  And referencing the “Fortnight for Freedom,” he noted that “there are reports that some bishops will play down or largely ignore the Fortnight for Freedom campaign, scheduled for June 21 to July 4, in their own dioceses. These bishops fear that it has become enmeshed in Republican election-year politics and see many of its chief promoters, notably Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore, as too strident.”

So where do we go from here? Can Catholics come together again to focus more strongly on our Gospel mission, or will our Church become more and more caught up in conservative Republican efforts to deny President Obama a second term?

Time will tell, and prayers are needed.

It’s hard to believe that just a few months ago I was sitting in a college classroom taking a course on Politics and Public Health Advocacy, while today I’m using the knowledge and tools I gained from my public health courses everyday as part of my role at NETWORK. As a public health student, I was riveted by the debate that occurred as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) made its way through Congress, and I joined many in celebration when such an historic piece of legislation was finally passed and later upheld by the Supreme Court. Yet, despite the great strides made by the ACA, public health and healthcare advocacy does not end with its passage. There is still so much to do in order to ensure that all Americans have access to quality, affordable healthcare.

One particular area for continued advocacy is the Medicaid expansion, which was essentially made optional for states by the Supreme Court’s ruling on the ACA. The expansion calls for extending Medicaid eligibility to all individuals under the age of 65 with incomes up to 133% of the poverty line, which would result in millions of newly insured individuals. As a public health student I spent time volunteering in a safety net health clinic, whose resources and dedicated staff were stretched thin trying to meet the needs of all of their uninsured patients. For many others who are uninsured, a hospital emergency room is their only source of care. For those without insurance, easily treatable, or even preventable illnesses quickly grow into major health crises, as seeking out medical care is postponed as long as physically possible.

A healthcare system that leaves so many uninsured has very serious consequences—life and death consequences, in fact. Each year in the United States, approximately 45,000 deaths are associated with a lack of health insurance. Overall, uninsured adults under the age of 65 have a 40% higher risk of death than those who are insured. Several states have previously expanded their Medicaid programs, and a recent study finds that in three of these states—New York, Maine and Arizona—the Medicaid expansions were associated with 6.1% fewer deaths. A similar study out of Oregon found that not only did those on Medicaid report better health, but they also experienced improved financial security. This is what is at stake with the Medicaid expansion.

However, despite the benefits of expanding Medicaid, and despite 100% of the costs of the expansion being financed by the federal government until 2016, gradually decreasing to 90% in 2020 and after, many stateshave indicated they will refuse the expansion, while still others have yet to decide. Clearly, the struggle for quality, affordable healthcare is not over.

From studying public health at a Jesuit university, I learned to critically evaluate healthcare policy for its impact on the most marginalized in society, so I am honored and excited to continue to advocate for those on the margins in my work with NETWORK on the Medicaid expansion.

NETWORK will be working closely with our members and allies in states across the U.S. to convince governors to accept the Medicaid expansion. We invite all nuns, and anyone else who wants to “get on the bus” with us, to form teams of activists to lobby your governors to support the Medicaid expansion in your state. We have put together a Medicaid expansion toolkit that provides information on the Medicaid expansion, how to lobby your governors, and how to publicize your actions. Email me at [email protected] if you want to get involved or have any questions!

On Thursday, November 29, 2012, a broad coalition of advocates in Missouri, including many NETWORK members, had much to celebrate, as Governor Jay Nixon publicly announced his support for Medicaid expansion in Missouri and his inclusion of it in his 2014 budget! NETWORK agrees with Governor Nixon that “It’s the smart thing to do, and it’s the right thing to do,” as not only will the expansion provide life-saving health coverage to many hardworking Missouri families, but it is also expected to create 24,000 jobs in the state.

Gov. Nixon’s announcement was unexpected news to many, as he has been non-committal regarding provisions of the Affordable Care Act throughout his 2012 re-election campaign. Prior to the November 6 election, NETWORK members and Missouri “Nuns on the Bus” participants made a trip to Jefferson City to meet with Governor Nixon’s budget director, encouraging him to ask Governor Nixon to include the Medicaid expansion in his budget for 2014. These NETWORK members are part of a wide coalition of Medicaid expansion supporters in Missouri, including the Missouri Hospital Association and the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, among many others.

While we certainly celebrate this significant success, we know there is still much work to be done. Many state Republicans, who have a super majority in both the Missouri House and Senate, have voiced their strong opposition to the Medicaid expansion. Additionally, most other states have either rejected the expansion or have yet to make a decision. Governor Nixon’s unexpected announcement shows us the power that citizens can have when they take action, so we are calling on all our members and supporters to “get on the bus” and lobby their governors and state legislators across the nation to support the expansion.

If you are interested in standing up for the millions living below 133% of the federal poverty line who could gain access to health coverage through the Medicaid expansion, please check out our Medicaid expansion toolkit athttp://www.networklobby.org/nuns-bus-medicaid-expansion or email me at [email protected].

I hope you’ve got your calendar open because you’re going to want to draw a big circle around March 31st.That’s the final deadline for anyone who is uninsured to get health coverage, and avoid having to pay a fine for not having health insurance. Purchasing health insurance is a big decision, and while you decide on whether to sign up or encourage a friend to sign up today, consider this: Nearly six in 10 uninsured Americans could payless than $100 per month for health care coverage.

To find out what benefits are available for you and your family, please visit www.healthcare.gov or call 1-800-318-2596 (TTY: 1-855-889-4325).  Open enrollment ends Monday, March 31^st 

Please see below for a quick rundown on the most important things to know:

• Plans cannot reject individuals with pre-existing conditions: https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-i-have-a-pre-existing-health-condition/
• Plans must cover preventive health services: https://www.healthcare.gov/what-are-my-preventive-care-benefits/
• What income levels qualify for lower premiums: https://www.healthcare.gov/how-can-i-save-money-on-marketplace-coverage/
• Penalty for not having healthcare coverage 2014 and beyond: https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-someone-doesnt-have-health-coverage-in-2014/
• Penalty Exemptions: https://www.healthcare.gov/exemptions/
• Five levels of coverage to choose from: https://www.healthcare.gov/how-do-i-choose-marketplace-insurance/

Ojala que tenga abierta su calendario, porque Usted necesite marcar el 31 de marzo con un gran círculo. Eso es el día final para inscribirse en un plan de seguro de salud en 2014. Bajo la nueva ley, todos los ciudadanos estadounidenses tienen que tener seguro de salud, o pagar una multa. Comprar seguro de salud es una gran decision, y mientras que decide si va a inscribirse or alentar a un amigo/a para inscribirse, piense en un facto: Seis en cada diez personas que no tiene seguro de salud califica por planes que cuestan menos que $100 dólares cada mes.

Para saber cuáles beneficios están disponibles para usted y su familia, por favor visite awww.cuidadodesalud.gov o llame al 1-800-318-2596  (TTY: 1-855-889-4325).  El período de inscripción termina el 31 de marzo.

Por favor vea a continuación un resumen rápido de los puntos más importantes:

• Las pólizas no pueden negar a las personas con condiciones pre-existentes: https://www.cuidadodesalud.gov/es/what-if-i-have-a-pre-existing-health-condition/

• Las pólizas deben cubrir los servicios de salud preventiva: https://www.cuidadodesalud.gov/es/what-are-my-preventive-care-benefits/

• Qué niveles de ingresos califican para una prima más baja:  https://www.cuidadodesalud.gov/es/how-can-i-save-money-on-marketplace-coverage/

• Cuánto es la multa por no tener cobertura en el 2014 y más allá:  https://www.cuidadodesalud.gov/es/what-if-someone-doesnt-have-health-coverage-in-2014/

• Exenciones de la multa:  https://www.cuidadodesalud.gov/es/exemptions/

• Cinco niveles de cobertura al escoger: https://www.cuidadodesalud.gov/es/how-do-i-choose-marketplace-insurance/

In less than three weeks (on March 4) the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of King v. Burwell – with a decision expected in late spring/early summer. Too few people realize how high the stakes are. Before considering the stakes, let’s be sure we understand the fundamental issues.

Simply put, without the legalese, the Supreme Court will hear the claim that federal tax credits – or what is often referred to as “subsidies” – should be available only for health plans sold through insurance exchanges run by the states, not for plans sold through an exchange run by the federal government for the state. Currently there are 37 states that offer health plans using this latter method, commonly called federally-facilitated marketplaces.

Key to understanding the arguments of the plaintiffs – four Virginia residents – is whether the IRS can offer federal tax credits or subsidies to those who purchase health plans through federally-facilitated marketplaces. The plaintiffs contend that the exact language in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) does not allow the IRS to grant tax credits to states that refused to set up their own exchanges. The language at issue is surely a drafting glitch, according to Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times. To take it literally “would make a hash of the entire law.”

Significantly, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) maintains that the ACA does indeed allow for these subsidies, otherwise the entire purpose of the ACA would be frustrated.

In hundreds of previous cases the Supreme Court has deferred to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of the law. The Court, therefore, seems to have a settled approach to statutory interpretation (certainly not constitutional interpretation). Why would this case be any different?

Four former Senate staffers, heavily involved in drafting the law in 2009-10, have recently (February 3, 2015) written an article in Politico that refutes the “language” arguments of the plaintiffs by clearly stating that the federal exchange is the “functional equivalent” of a state exchange in every way.

They and others say that the possibility that residents of states that did not set up their own exchanges would not be entitled to tax credits was never raised during debate on the bill and never part of any version of the ACA. No one in Congress appears to have believed at the time that the law would reject any qualified beneficiaries. If opponents of the law are to be believed, Congress intended to threaten states that did not set up their own marketplaces with a healthcare death spiral, but never communicated this threat. This is patently absurd.

It is not plausible that states would be given a choice to set up an exchange or default to the federal government if it meant that in choosing the second scenario their citizens would lose the right to tax subsidies that enable them to afford insurance. The law says states are given a choice. Did Congress deliberately aim to punish states that didn’t establish their own insurance exchanges? Hardly.

Linda Greenhouse, a lawyer writing in the New York Times on February 5, 2015, clarified for non-lawyers that every justice subscribes to the fact that statutory language has to be understood in context. She quotes statements made by several of the current justices, but the one by Justice Scalia caught my eye: “When we look at a provision of law, we look at the entire provision of law, including later amendments. We try to make sense of the law as a whole.” One cannot expect that an acontextual reading of the law will win the day in the Supreme Court.

Greenhouse mentions a fascinating brief filed in support of the government’s position by 23 attorneys general from states both with and without marketplace exchanges (including the Virginia attorney general’s office) that indicates that the plaintiffs’ side would “violate basic principles of cooperative federalism by surprising the states with a dramatic hidden consequence of their exchange election.”

It’s possible to argue that the language in the ACA statute regarding tax credits is ambiguous, but the foregoing discussion concerning congressional intent, the context of the law, HHS’s interpretation of the ACA, the strong belief that federally-run exchanges serve as surrogates of the state, and the principles of cooperative federalism all indicate that the merits of the case rest with the ACA as implemented.

An article in the New Republic provides some additional fodder for supporters of the ACA. An adverse ruling would cause immense damage to powerful corporate interests (as we’ll see in the next section of this blog) like private insurance companies, hospitals and other stakeholders who oppose the challenge to the law.

Above all, the Roberts Court is a business-friendly court. Roberts has been friendly to the Chamber of Commerce and it would certainly besmirch his reputation if a decision effectively begins a market death-spiral in healthcare. Furthermore, an adverse ruling would be politically damaging to the Republicans who, despite numerous attempts, have never been able to coalesce around an ACA alternative. And Republican legislatures and governors who have not supported the ACA would be likely to feel their residents’ backlash.

Many experts agree that the plaintiffs’ case is quite weak. So, what’s at stake if the decision goes against the ACA? The list is not pretty:

• If tax credits are rescinded, affordable health insurance for nearly 5 million Americans  (Hiltzik’s estimate, mentioned in the LA Times, but the health law’s 2015 season is still underway) currently receiving subsidies in the 37 affected states would be ended

• Droves of healthy people would leave HealthCare.gov

• Americans who have lost their subsidies and are trying to buy individual policies outside the government market would face prices they could not afford

• Those paying for insurance on their own would face a significant jump in premiums, and this would affect employer-based health insurance as well

• Women and children who constitute the vast majority of those in the federally-run marketplaces would be disproportionately affected, according to a January 2015 Issue Brief of the National Partnership for Women and Families. The ACA is particularly crucial for women, who tend to live longer, have unique reproductive health needs, and visit their care providers more often, compared to men

• Florida, Texas, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan and New Jersey are among the states with the most to lose, but even blue states with their own marketplaces would be affected since many insurance companies are nationwide in scope, according to the PBS NewsHour.

In short, the market for affordable healthcare will spiral downward as more and more people and companies are unable to pay skyrocketing premiums. This describes the very “death spiral” that the ACA was designed to prevent.

For those who enjoy and better identify with “human Interest” stories, the Center for American Progress (CAP) has been releasing a total of nine (one for each justice) stories of real people over the past several weeks. These are people who would be tangibly affected by the King v. Burwell decision. The latest three stories were released on February 11.

NETWORK’s belief is that all people should have access to affordable, quality and comprehensive insurance in order to promote their economic stability and the health of their families. We believe that healthcare is a shared responsibility that is grounded in our common humanity. We acknowledge our enduring responsibility to care for one another and to recognize that we are whole only when the most vulnerable among us is cared for. We are witnessing an attack on a law that goes a long way toward sharing our abundant healthcare resources with millions of people who could not otherwise afford it. We invite everyone to join in prayerful action so that the ACA will be strengthened, not weakened and eventually ruined by the Supreme Court action. As this paper notes, there are many positive signs that justice will prevail.

Today we celebrate the fifth anniversary of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and declare once and for all that the ACA is a SUCCESS.

Unlike the hysteria that surrounded its passage, with critics arguing that it would destroy the U.S. economy, leading to job loss, the fact is that our economy is stronger, jobs are growing, and Americans are more healthcare secure than they have ever been.

Let’s look at the facts.

To date, 16.4 million U.S. families and individuals who were previously uninsured are now covered.  The rates of the uninsured have declined across races and ethnicities since October 2013, with a greater drop among blacks (9.2 percentage points) and Latinos (12.3 percentage points) than among whites, who had the lowest rate of those uninsured (14.3 percent) to start.

Today, millions of young adults under 26 have greater health security because they can stay on their parents’ insurance while they finish school or begin a career.

Today, there are financial protections in place if you face severe illness so Americans don’t risk losing their house or bankruptcy because they get sick.  Further, insurers can no longer discriminate against Americans with preexisting medical conditions by refusing to provide coverage or dropping coverage when folks get sick.

Today, we celebrate the fact that insurers can’t charge higher premiums if you are a woman and can’t sell substandard plans that don’t pay for essential health care benefits.

Today, we celebrate the fact that healthcare inflation is at the lowest level in 50 years and that slow growth in healthcare spending has substantially improved the long-term federal budget outlook.  According to the most recent projections, healthcare spending growth is the lowest on record with real per capita spending growing at an estimated average annual rate of just 1.3% over the three years since 2010.  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has reduced its projections of future Medicare and Medicaid spending in 2020 by $147 billion (0.6% of GDP) since August 2010. This represents about a 10% reduction in projected spending on these programs.

With all the good news, why is it that the Republican budgets call for the elimination of the Affordable Care Act?  On the fiftieth Anniversary of both Medicaid and Medicare, why are they proposing draconian cuts to Medicaid potentially eliminating coverage for millions of Americans and a fundamental restructuring of Medicare?  We also live with the real possibility that the Supreme Court, in the King v. Burwell case now before it, may narrowly interpret the ACA provisions related to expanding Medicaid to the states, with the effect of millions people losing coverage.

Our Catholic faith teaches that quality, affordable healthcare is a social good and basic human right.  NETWORK has called for universal access to a health system that serves all people, especially the most vulnerable.  Healing was central to the ministry of Jesus, and our commitment to providing quality healthcare is our nation’s means of carrying out our enduring responsibility to nurture the dignity of every person.  We must fight any effort to roll back healthcare coverage.

At the same time, as we celebrate the important milestones for the ACA, Medicare and Medicaid, we must remember that our work to provide healthcare insurance to all Americans is not yet complete.  We insist that Congress immediately renew the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for four years.  We insist that states expand Medicaid in states that have refused to provide coverage to families living in their states.

We must continue all efforts until everyone has quality, affordable health insurance.

As you may know, we are nearing the end of Open Enrollment season, when individuals and families can sign up for health insurance. In fact, December 15, the last day to enroll for January 1 coverage, is quickly approaching. Despite some politicians’ efforts repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), NETWORK continues to uplift and support the pro-life policy that made healthcare accessible to millions who were previously uninsured.

We continue to hear stories from people whose lives were changed because they had access to healthcare. Recently I re-read one of these, the story of Mary Ann Wasil, which was first told in the NETWORK Connection magazine (First Quarter 2014, p. 4-6).

At 39, Mary Ann was diagnosed with breast cancer despite having no family history of the disease. Mary Ann, a mother of three girls, needed a mastectomy and chemotherapy to save her life. During her chemotherapy, she suffered a stroke, which required additional surgery. At the same time, Mary Ann’s marriage was ending. She had made the decision years ago to leave her job as a police officer to raise her daughters; she had held a few part-time jobs since then which never had benefits.

In 2011, seven years after her initial diagnosis, her cancer returned. The end of her marriage meant she no longer had health insurance, and with a “preexisting condition,” both Mary Ann and her children were uninsurable. The chemotherapy for her second round of cancer cost around $25,000 per session. The Affordable Care Act was lifesaving legislation for Mary Ann, who was able to find an affordable healthcare plan through her state’s marketplace that covered her despite her preexisting condition.

What a blessing that so many lives have been saved through affordable access to healthcare! Thousands of moms, dads, grandparents, and others are also gaining this coverage by enrolling in health insurance for 2016. If you have not signed up for an insurance plan, it’s not too late to gain January 1 coverage: enrollees have until December 15 to sign up and avoid the penalty.

These plans can be affordable. Many people are eligible for tax credits or financial assistance and many plans are $75 or less per month. While the website may seem overwhelming, free and confidential help is available from trained, local professionals.

With the Affordable Care Act, millions of people have gained health insurance through the marketplace and through Medicaid expansion. NETWORK continues to advocate for and celebrate pro-healthcare legislation, working towards the day when healthcare is genuinely affordable and accessible to people of all income levels, with particular concern for the most vulnerable members of our community.